Well, in a democracy, where politicians have to win elections, almost all politicians claim to support the concerns of ordinary people. Even those who advocate policies to help the rich don't come out and say that's their intention; they say that helping the rich will benefit the whole society(through trickle-down or whatever).

And, if we want to say "Only the ones who REALLY support the concerns of ordinary people", then that's gonna eliminate a good chunk of the usages of the word, since it gets used to describe a lot of politicians on the left and the right, who, logically, can't all be equally supportive of ordinary people.

"...Well, I guess these corporate metaphors haven't done much to lighten the gloom that my previous 'Cui Bono?' column may have induced. I may even be accused of deepening the gloom by ruling out effective rescue efforts from both corporations and governments - corporations because it's their 'nature' to remain cancerous to the end, governments because, instead of playing the role of cancer-fighting oncologists, they are doing all they can to help the corporate cancer cells proliferate.

On the bright side, however, eliminating the possibility of pro-survival help from both business and government does prevent wasting time on futile entreaties....Only a powerful, sustained campaign involving and supported by all the members and groups in civil societies will have a chance of succeeding..."

First populism is a concept of attention to the concerns of the ordinary people. Well not always. Parties coopt this in order to get the support of those people but it may have nothing to do with their interests-- like the Republican party and Trump. The only interest Trump has in the ordinary people is their interest in voting for him and hopefully adoring him at a rally. Usually it is a fraud.

Secondly, there is the real ugly side to the elephant. By ordinary people, populism from the right does not mean all ordinary people but those of the right group who feel threatened by another group. This is why right wing populism tends to be racist more often than not. It can also be sexist. So this is about the "ordinary" white male who happens to be threatened by women and minorities.

There is nothing beyond rhetoric in common between populism on the right and populism on the left. The right coopts the populism of the left and the fake version does a better job politically. Now the left might try to take back the term, now that is really dirty.

First populism is a concept of attention to the concerns of the ordinary people. Well not always. Parties coopt this in order to get the support of those people but it may have nothing to do with their interests-- like the Republican party and Trump. The only interest Trump has in the ordinary people is their interest in voting for him and hopefully adoring him at a rally. Usually it is a fraud.

Secondly, there is the real ugly side to the elephant. By ordinary people, populism from the right does not mean all ordinary people but those of the right group who feel threatened by another group. This is why right wing populism tends to be racist more often than not. It can also be sexist. So this is about the "ordinary" white male who happens to be threatened by women and minorities.

There is nothing beyond rhetoric in common between populism on the right and populism on the left. The right coopts the populism of the left and the fake version does a better job politically. Now the left might try to take back the term, now that is really dirty.

I find this comment funny because if you swap the instances of "left" and "right", "republican" and "democrat", "trump" and "clinton" - etc, and a couple of adjectives, you pretty much have the exact same thing that the alt right says.

"Those other guys just want your votes! We're the only ones who are pure and interested in helping the ordinary people! But also they are racists because they scapegoat your group for the problems they caused! Their solutions are just designed to sound good but they're fake and will just make things worse!"

"If all men lay claim to righteousness, and they do, who is to say which man claims true?" - R. Scott Bakker

First populism is a concept of attention to the concerns of the ordinary people. Well not always. Parties coopt this in order to get the support of those people but it may have nothing to do with their interests-- like the Republican party and Trump. The only interest Trump has in the ordinary people is their interest in voting for him and hopefully adoring him at a rally. Usually it is a fraud.

Secondly, there is the real ugly side to the elephant. By ordinary people, populism from the right does not mean all ordinary people but those of the right group who feel threatened by another group. This is why right wing populism tends to be racist more often than not. It can also be sexist. So this is about the "ordinary" white male who happens to be threatened by women and minorities.

There is nothing beyond rhetoric in common between populism on the right and populism on the left. The right coopts the populism of the left and the fake version does a better job politically. Now the left might try to take back the term, now that is really dirty.

I find this comment funny because if you swap the instances of "left" and "right", "republican" and "democrat", "trump" and "clinton" - etc, and a couple of adjectives, you pretty much have the exact same thing that the alt right says.

"Those other guys just want your votes! We're the only ones who are pure and interested in helping the ordinary people! But also they are racists because they scapegoat your group for the problems they caused! Their solutions are just designed to sound good but they're fake and will just make things worse!"

"If all men lay claim to righteousness, and they do, who is to say which man claims true?" - R. Scott Bakker

That is interesting -- to get to that conclusion you had to ignore that right wing populism includes reactions against anti racism and against gender equality. You also have to ignore the reality behind policies from the left that tend to favour greater equality (you know for the ordinary people) and from the right to centralize wealth to the wealthy (against the ordinary people).

But sure when you ignore all substance and focus only on the bullshit you get to conclude something like that. Of course you also have to ignore my point that right wing populism co-opts the messages of the left. Oops.

I agree that right-wing populism is hoax. Right-wingers just appeal to the lowest common denominator, which often includes some folks in the rural areas. For them "elites" is the people who read, rather than their boss who's moving all the jobs overseas.

Having read Salutin's article, I have to wonder whether "populism" might best be broken down into "scare populism" and "non-scare populism".

Certainly rhetoric like "immigrants are taking our good jobs" should probably qualify as "scare populism", since there's no real evidence that this is happening.

And rhetoric like "a national pharmacare program would save Canadians billions of dollars, and would continue what our national medicare program began" should probably qualify as "non-scare populism" because there's lots of evidence of the benefits of this.

Not sure where to assign rhetoric like "the elites are stealing from you every day and they don't give a damn about you" though. Heck, I can't even remember which side said that?

Which is the side that thinks people who think they're better'n me are robbing me?? Because that's a pretty persuasive one regardless, and I want the proper side to get the credit for it.

Which is the side that thinks people who think they're better'n me are robbing me?? Because that's a pretty persuasive one regardless, and I want the proper side to get the credit for it.

This is clearly the right. Only they pretend that cultural signals, such as drinking chardonnay and eating brie are the way to identify 'elites'. Lefties all know that only wealth counts in determining who has the power to rob the masses.

One of the distinguishing features of populism is that it takes the part of the 'people' against the 'elites'. That is neither left nor right, progressive nor reactionary. In fact both the left and the right have espoused populism (or at least the tenets thereof) in order to get votes.

It's also true that later versions of populism took the part of farmers against the various elites, such as bankers, equipment manufaturers, produce buyers, etc.

​The problem with attacking elites is that in a capaitist economy, elites can change, but capital remains the same. As someone pointed out upthread, it is corporations that are the heart of capitalism now, not individuals. Thus, populism ends up being a diversionary tactic. Although it is true that it's a lot easier to get people to hate individuals than corporations.

But before we trash the corporations, we'd better have a look at who owns them. According to Wikipedia, pension funds:

...are the major investors in listed and private companies. They are especially important to the stock market where large institutional investors dominate. The largest 300 pension funds collectively hold about $6 trillion in assets.

In January 2008, The Economist reported that Morgan Stanley estimates that pension funds worldwide hold over US$20 trillion in assets, the largest for any category of investor ahead of mutual funds, insurance companies, currency reserves, sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds, or private equity.

The Federal Old-age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is the world's largest public pension fund which oversees $2.743 trillion USD in assets.

​Back in the day when it was the farmers against the Rockefellers, the Mellons and the Carnegies, it was a lot simpler. Populism made a lot more sense then.

"Anthony Arnove, editor at Haymarket Books, discusses the fight against fascism by looking at the activism of Clara Zetkin." Once again we see how the bankruptcy and failure of the liberal left and its failure to organize a unifying progressive coalition facilitates the conditions allowing fascism's rise.

That is interesting -- to get to that conclusion you had to ignore that right wing populism includes reactions against anti racism and against gender equality.

For a lot of people it's hard to tell the difference between what you call anti-racism and what they call racism. Likewise for sexism.

No it is not hard to tell. Some people, like you perhaps, do not want to tell the difference.

It is not difficult to tell the difference between an organiztion founded on, identified by and organized by racism from an individual racist. Yes, there are acts that can be debated around the margins but you can tell the difference between Antifa and the KKK for example. That is, if you want to.

I asked people here to name any North American identitarian racist groups. Those that identify using race. Nobody answered. You pretending people cannot see the difference is BS. You tell me what is racist like the kkk or nazis on the left. Then let's review your cannot tell a difference argument.

The closest you are going to get will be organizations that are pushing back agaisnt racism against them. That is about propaganda. You might not like BLM but it is anti-racist even if you dislike the language or tactics they use. They do not seek an apartheid or supremacy. They seek equality. If an individual thinks otherwise -- it is not in any of their official statements. This is not true about White supremacist organizations.

The so-called Ford Nation is not necessarily based on racism, but perhaps on other types of discrimination. Reportedly, many immigrants were uncomfortable with Smitherman as openly-gay mayoral candidate and voted for Ford instead. The same dynamics will likely be at play in the upcoming Ontario election. Doug Ford is courting the so-con vote pretty hard, promising to scrap the sex-ed curriculum and restrict abortion for minors. Appealing to the lowest common denominator is at the core of right-wing "populism." Instead of blaming corporations for moving jobs overseas, unpopular minorities are targeted. It's a bait and switch game.

That is interesting -- to get to that conclusion you had to ignore that right wing populism includes reactions against anti racism and against gender equality.

For a lot of people it's hard to tell the difference between what you call anti-racism and what they call racism. Likewise for sexism.

No it is not hard to tell. Some people, like you perhaps, do not want to tell the difference.

Oh no, I can absolutely tell the difference. I just disagree with you.

There was a widely publicized obviously anti-racist workshop at a university in my city on Monday. It was called "It's okay to be (against) White(ness)", and the name was derived from the alt-right's obviously racist "It's okay to be white" campaign from last year.

And anyone who is confused about that gets called a hater or an idiot by the empathetic "anti-racists" like yourself and socialjustice101. Which makes sense, because it's so obvious that the other guys are the real racists and anyone who claims not to see it is just willfully blind or secretly one of the 8000 KKK members in a North American population of some 400 million.

Quote:

I asked people here to name any North American identitarian racist groups. Those that identify using race. Nobody answered. You pretending people cannot see the difference is BS. You tell me what is racist like the kkk or nazis on the left. Then let's review your cannot tell a difference argument.

The closest you are going to get will be organizations that are pushing back agaisnt racism against them. That is about propaganda. You might not like BLM but it is anti-racist even if you dislike the language or tactics they use. They do not seek an apartheid or supremacy. They seek equality. If an individual thinks otherwise -- it is not in any of their official statements. This is not true about White supremacist organizations.

That is interesting -- to get to that conclusion you had to ignore that right wing populism includes reactions against anti racism and against gender equality.

For a lot of people it's hard to tell the difference between what you call anti-racism and what they call racism. Likewise for sexism.

No it is not hard to tell. Some people, like you perhaps, do not want to tell the difference.

Oh no, I can absolutely tell the difference. I just disagree with you. There was a widely publicized obviously anti-racist workshop at a university in my city on Monday. It was called "It's okay to be (against) White(ness)", and the name was derived from the alt-right's obviously racist "It's okay to be white" campaign from last year. And anyone who is confused about that gets called a hater or an idiot by the empathetic "anti-racists" like yourself and socialjustice101. Which makes sense, because it's so obvious that the other guys are the real racists and anyone who claims not to see it is just willfully blind or secretly one of the 8000 KKK members in a North American population of some 400 million.

Quote:

I asked people here to name any North American identitarian racist groups. Those that identify using race. Nobody answered. You pretending people cannot see the difference is BS. You tell me what is racist like the kkk or nazis on the left. Then let's review your cannot tell a difference argument.

The closest you are going to get will be organizations that are pushing back agaisnt racism against them. That is about propaganda. You might not like BLM but it is anti-racist even if you dislike the language or tactics they use. They do not seek an apartheid or supremacy. They seek equality. If an individual thinks otherwise -- it is not in any of their official statements. This is not true about White supremacist organizations.

That was in another thread.

so there you have it somoene on this site who believes in reverse racism crap. He ignores the destinction between angry responses to racism and racism itself.

This is not an electoral problem in Canada as his position is one that is fairly extreme and unlikely to be held by anyone who would vote for a progressive party.

anti-racist workshop at a university in my city on Monday. It was called "It's okay to be (against) White(ness)", and the name was derived from the alt-right's obviously racist "It's okay to be white" campaign from last year. And anyone who is confused about that gets called a hater or an idiot by the empathetic "anti-racists" like yourself and socialjustice101. Which makes sense, because it's so obvious that the other guys are the real racists and anyone who claims not to see it is just willfully blind or secretly one of the 8000 KKK members in a North American population of some 400 million.

I think the title of the workshop demonstrates poor judgement by the organizers and I would not attend it, however, it cannot be compared in any way to the fascism of the alt right. It's like comparing jaywalking to an assault.

I think the title of the workshop demonstrates poor judgement by the organizers and I would not attend it

I suspect it was chosen to be provocative -- like a real-world case of "clickbait", kind of like when a school bake sale sells muffins for a dollar for men, and 78 cents for women. Whether either wins hearts and minds, I don't know. But I'm pretty confident they didn't choose that title without considering whether it might raise ire.

so there you have it somoene on this site who believes in reverse racism crap. He ignores the destinction between angry responses to racism and racism itself.

There's no such thing as "reverse racism".

And you're the one who's ignoring a growing angry response to racism. I guess you have the liberty to do so, since the pushback won't affect you as part of the majority. Would you look at that - a legitimate instance of white privilege.

Quote:

This is not an electoral problem in Canada as his position is one that is fairly extreme and unlikely to be held by anyone who would vote for a progressive party.

I think the title of the workshop demonstrates poor judgement by the organizers and I would not attend it

I suspect it was chosen to be provocative -- like a real-world case of "clickbait", kind of like when a school bake sale sells muffins for a dollar for men, and 78 cents for women. Whether either wins hearts and minds, I don't know. But I'm pretty confident they didn't choose that title without considering whether it might raise ire.

It is provocative but not in a good way, because it's not clear. It gives people an excuse for false equivalency. It's like when people say "conservatard" on the Internet. Progressives should be above this trash.

I think the title of the workshop demonstrates poor judgement by the organizers and I would not attend it

I suspect it was chosen to be provocative -- like a real-world case of "clickbait", kind of like when a school bake sale sells muffins for a dollar for men, and 78 cents for women. Whether either wins hearts and minds, I don't know. But I'm pretty confident they didn't choose that title without considering whether it might raise ire.

I agree with this.

My question is - who thinks that provoking and raising people's ire is a good tactic to work towards reconciliation?

My question is - who thinks that provoking and raising people's ire is a good tactic to work towards reconciliation?

The self-professed "populists" like Trump and Ford.

So, you're comparing the deliberately provocative title "It's okay to be against whiteness" to be the same sort of tactic one might expect of Trump or Ford? Not judging (I happen to agree), I just want to clarify since that is the context of Magoo's comment that I was replying to.

It is provocative but not in a good way, because it's not clear. It gives people an excuse for false equivalency.

So do the 78 cent muffins, though. The false equivalency is expected, and maybe even hoped for.

Quote:

My question is - who thinks that provoking and raising people's ire is a good tactic to work towards reconciliation?

The raising of ire should not, in and of itself, be the barrier. Though I do wonder how many people react by saying "at first I was all, like, what? But then I had an epiphany and now I totally understand it all".

That said, I'll also say that if I were ever coerced into attending some workshop in which I'm expected to "unpack my invisible backpack" like I'm eight years old, I swear I'll pull a fire alarm to get out of it. Not to retain "my privelege" but because I'm not eight years old.

And you're the one who's ignoring a growing angry response to racism. I guess you have the liberty to do so, since the pushback won't affect you as part of the majority. Would you look at that - a legitimate instance of white privilege.

"My question is - who thinks that provoking and raising people's ire is a good tactic to work towards reconciliation?"

Great question, in my view it cuts to the heart of what this topic is about. On an individual level, I think the answer is clearly it is not a good tactic. And as it relates to mainstream left-like media, and I think CNN and SNL and the DNC-lead media in the US, and our Canadian equivalents like the Toronto Star are not interested in working towards any kind of reconciliation on any of these issues, but are engaging in hyperbole and grand overgeneralizations to brand themselves and define their market share of the news consuming audience. I think this is a big part of the political polarization and rising right wing populism we're seeing now.

"I agree that right-wing populism is hoax. Right-wingers just appeal to the lowest common denominator, which often includes some folks in the rural areas. For them "elites" is the people who read, rather than their boss who's moving all the jobs overseas."

I think this is far too simple. There is class/high education resentment in right wing populism, but it's there in left populism too. Fat Cat Bankers and all that.

And the sort of populism rising now on the right IS concerned about capitalism, and corporations moving jobs overseas. This was a big part of Trump's pitch during his campaign -- taking jobs back from Mexico, and large US companies not paying their share. This is also part of the right wing narrative about immigration -- they are taking jobs, taking government resources away from the citizens of the country who are paying taxes for it. They don't propose the same solutions as we might on the left, obviously, but there is uncomfortable overlap with right and left wing populism now. I think the language and lexicon commonly and comfortably used by the left media and some left activists is being effectively countered (and now mocked) by the right, and I think we will see this spill out into popular culture over the next few years.

It is deeply offensive on this board to throw around charges of ignoring or supporting racism to advance a discussion that has nothing to do with it. I think that goes against the very spirit of what this place is, We now have two people here doing this. It needs to stop.

I am trying to discuss how charges of racism are being used, by the left and right mainstream media and in popular culture now, and how this affects activists and progressives hoping to make positive change. I am not saying anyone on babble is ignoring or supporting racism, and I don't know what I have said that would make you think this. I get you are pissed at Cody, so you should work that out however you see fit, but if you are including me in this be specific please.

Social justice: ""Right-wing populism is a pyramid-like corporate scam, where a bozo replaces your typical corporate sweet-talker. To give them any credibility is essentially falling for the scam."

I suppose I mostly agree with this, but it begs a question very similar to the one Cody already posed. What is the best way to stop people from falling for the scam?

Ask them about specific policies or past actions of the self-professed "populist." The bozos channel anger and it resonates. Usually it's a personality cult with very little logical basis. Also ask about the right-winger's accomplishments and judgement. I recall leaving quite a few Rob Ford fans speechless when I asked them if they trust Rob Ford's judgement, after all of his crack cocaine revelations.

Yes, that is a good tactic that I've tried as well, perhaps not as successfully as you. When it is unsuccessful, it is usually because of some distinction made or drawn by them about their bozo of choice being a businessman who knows how the world really works.

Yes, that is a good tactic that I've tried as well, perhaps not as successfully as you. When it is unsuccessful, it is usually because of some distinction made or drawn by them about their bozo of choice being a businessman who knows how the world really works.

There are businessmen running on both sides of the spectrum. I recall a prominent TD banker running under Jack Layton. Incidentally, Trump and the Fords have a reputation as bullies and cheaters in the business world. That's not the kind of people you want in business nor in politics. Furthermore, they are not self-made businessmen. There were born entitled.

Yes, preaching to the choir on that. And of course "born entitled" fits the bill for many many mainstream figures on the left and right, Trudeau being an excellent example. I think the desire for the businessman who knows how the world works is in large part a reaction to the popular conception of politicians: deceitful, financially compromised and/or entirely driven by maintaining their position of power.

Trudeau was born to relative riches and fame, but he went to a community college (aside from his University education) and worked as a simple teacher. I think he made an effort to be down-to-earth, although he was probably still treated as a celebrity everywhere he went. The Fords and the Trumps had everything handed to them. They don't really know how the world works. I'd suggest drawing a distinction between a self-made businessman, and businessman by inheritance. Furthermore, Trump's businesses declared bankrupcy 6 times, and he was sued for his fraudulent Trump University. From what I hear, the Fords' labeling business is NOT doing well.

They don't propose the same solutions as we might on the left, obviously, but there is uncomfortable overlap with right and left wing populism now. I think the language and lexicon commonly and comfortably used by the left media and some left activists is being effectively countered (and now mocked) by the right, and I think we will see this spill out into popular culture over the next few years.

It's already happening. In 90 seconds this kid's cartoon show makes a brutal but brilliant commentary on the myopia of some left activists who are more concerned with winning arguments and displaying their own righteousness than actually helping people, even when the "offender" is obviously well-intentioned and maybe just slightly careless with their words.

I don't think it is a coincidence that you chose a cartoon to express your cartoonish view of reality. How about some of the real world examples Sean has been asking for of left wing intolerance, not just by a few individual nutzoids, but by organized groups?